A question about Oaks talk - who suffers?

[BeNotDeceived]

Oaks was once caught on a hot mic in a private meeting and asked if he really believes in the LDS religion to which he replied: 'not really but I think it's mankind's best effort to do God's will'. And we know Smith was a total charlatan and con-artist and so nothing taught as docrine is from God and so why concern ourselves with what Oaks has to say about Jesus, sin and suffering?

[huckelberry]

I'm curious what, In Oaks' mind, this suffering consists of.

On the off chance that Mormonism is "true," then I'm headed for the telestial kingdom. And according to the Gospel of Oaks, I will need to suffer for my sins, at least for a period of time. What will this suffering be? Fire and brimstone? Catholics seem to have some idea, or at least Dante did. South Park taught me that I might end up getting raped by Saddam Hussein. But what is the real cost? I'd like to know, especially since it appears to be temporary. I mean some temporary cost may be well worth being able to hand out for all eternity with the cool people, as opposed to the self-righteous pricks like Oaks in the celestial kingdom.

Here’s the beauty of what Oaks said - in the afterlife it’s eternal. So “time” is an irrelevance. Suggesting people will suffer for a time, shows Oaks either doesn’t understand how eternity works, or doesn’t believe in it.

Questions, how do you imagine eternal works? Time is things, arrangements and awareness changing. Is the eternal you refer to being absolutely frozen in one eternal condition? Would there even be awareness in that frozen state? Perhaps by eternal you mean dead.

[huckelberry]

In context, Oaks seems to be speaking of those who end up in the telestial kingdom. Later in the talk, he says:

The revealing description of those assigned to the lowest of the kingdoms of glory, the telestial, is “he who cannot abide ... a terrestrial glory.”20 That describes those who reject the Savior and have observed no divine limits on their behavior. This is the kingdom where the wicked abide, after they have suffered for their sins. These are described in modern revelation as “they who received not the gospel of Christ, neither the testimony of Jesus. ...

Since he is talking about those who rejected the Gospel, the Atonement doesn't apply. Though Oaks doesn't specifically cite it, the reference to suffering before entering the telestial kingdom appears to be invoking D&C 19:16-17:

For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent:

But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I.

Tagriffy, is rejecting the gospel here referring to rejecting Joseph Smith priesthood claims or rejecting Jesus Christ or rejecting the hope that Jesus embodied?

[tagriffy]

In context, Oaks seems to be speaking of those who end up in the telestial kingdom. Later in the talk, he says:

Since he is talking about those who rejected the Gospel, the Atonement doesn't apply. Though Oaks doesn't specifically cite it, the reference to suffering before entering the telestial kingdom appears to be invoking D&C 19:16-17:

Tagriffy, is rejecting the gospel here referring to rejecting Joseph Smith priesthood claims or rejecting Jesus Christ or rejecting the hope that Jesus embodied?

Depends on which kingdom we're talking about. For the terrestial kingdom, the relevant passage is D&C 76:72-76:

Behold, these are they who died without law;

And also they who are the spirits of men kept in prison, whom the Son visited, and reached the gospel unto them, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh;

Who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards received it.

These are they who are honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men.

These are they who receive of his glory, but not of his fulness.

If I'm reading this aright, this would basically correspond to those who have accepted Jesus Christ but, in your terms, rejected Joseph Smith's priesthood claims.

I think the relevant verse for the telestial kindgom is D&C 76:82, "These are they who received not the gospel of Christ, neither the testimoney of Jesus." I think that pretty much says it all.

[I Have Questions]

Here’s the beauty of what Oaks said - in the afterlife it’s eternal. So “time” is an irrelevance. Suggesting people will suffer for a time, shows Oaks either doesn’t understand how eternity works, or doesn’t believe in it.

Questions, how do you imagine eternal works? Time is things, arrangements and awareness changing. Is the eternal you refer to being absolutely frozen in one eternal condition? Would there even be awareness in that frozen state? Perhaps by eternal you mean dead.

Well I’m not sure I have a clear handle on how time works in the eternities. But as I understand the teaching of it in Mormonism, eternity is infinite time. So if time is infinite, time is irrelevant. If I don’t do something “today” I still have an infinite amount time left in which to do it. It’s rendered meaningless on the basis there’s an infinite amount of it.

[huckelberry]

Questions, how do you imagine eternal works? Time is things, arrangements and awareness changing. Is the eternal you refer to being absolutely frozen in one eternal condition? Would there even be awareness in that frozen state? Perhaps by eternal you mean dead.

Well I’m not sure I have a clear handle on how time works in the eternities. But as I understand the teaching of it in Mormonism, eternity is infinite time. So if time is infinite, time is irrelevant. If I don’t do something “today” I still have an infinite amount time left in which to do it. It’s rendered meaningless on the basis there’s an infinite amount of it.

Questions, like you I do not have a clear handle on how time works in eternity. I also have no sure knowledge what all is possible in the future if there is life after death. A word of caution occurs to me for better or worse. Being able to do a particular thing can depend upon being in a circumstance where the doing is possible. It is at least conceivable that if something has not been done by a certain time the circumstances necessary to make it possible to do the thing will no longer be there. If that is the case eternity will not enable it. Or it might be possible that the circumstances for doing something will only arise after a certain time.

I do not know what sorts of things might fall in that category.
There is the simpler observation that somethings may not be possible and all time will not change that.

[Philo Sofee]

In context, Oaks seems to be speaking of those who end up in the telestial kingdom. Later in the talk, he says:

The revealing description of those assigned to the lowest of the kingdoms of glory, the telestial, is “he who cannot abide ... a terrestrial glory.”20 That describes those who reject the Savior and have observed no divine limits on their behavior. This is the kingdom where the wicked abide, after they have suffered for their sins. These are described in modern revelation as “they who received not the gospel of Christ, neither the testimony of Jesus. ...

Since he is talking about those who rejected the Gospel, the Atonement doesn't apply. Though Oaks doesn't specifically cite it, the reference to suffering before entering the telestial kingdom appears to be invoking D&C 19:16-17:

For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent:

But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I.

And the infinite atonement overcomes all of this. None of this theology is valid at least in eternity.

[Philo Sofee]

I'm curious what, In Oaks' mind, this suffering consists of.

On the off chance that Mormonism is "true," then I'm headed for the telestial kingdom. And according to the Gospel of Oaks, I will need to suffer for my sins, at least for a period of time. What will this suffering be? Fire and brimstone? Catholics seem to have some idea, or at least Dante did. South Park taught me that I might end up getting raped by Saddam Hussein. But what is the real cost? I'd like to know, especially since it appears to be temporary. I mean some temporary cost may be well worth being able to hand out for all eternity with the cool people, as opposed to the self-righteous pricks like Oaks in the celestial kingdom.

Here’s the beauty of what Oaks said - in the afterlife it’s eternal. So “time” is an irrelevance. Suggesting people will suffer for a time, shows Oaks either doesn’t understand how eternity works, or doesn’t believe in it.

It's all for his own power and elevation... it's why it is so easy to see right through its ridiculousness.

[Philo Sofee]

Questions, how do you imagine eternal works? Time is things, arrangements and awareness changing. Is the eternal you refer to being absolutely frozen in one eternal condition? Would there even be awareness in that frozen state? Perhaps by eternal you mean dead.

Well I’m not sure I have a clear handle on how time works in the eternities. But as I understand the teaching of it in Mormonism, eternity is infinite time. So if time is infinite, time is irrelevant. If I don’t do something “today” I still have an infinite amount time left in which to do it. It’s rendered meaningless on the basis there’s an infinite amount of it.

And an infinite atonement makes hash of all the limitations placed upon anyone in a judgment. It is what Mormons and their leaders just have not given enough thought to. Irrelevant if there is a telestial, terrestrial or celestial, ALL limitations is overcome by infinite, so the theology is based on ego, not reality. Of course, I have my suspicions of the infinite as well, but it is their Mormon doctrine out of the Book of Mormon, so I intend on making them think through it all.

[tagriffy]

In context, Oaks seems to be speaking of those who end up in the telestial kingdom. Later in the talk, he says:

Since he is talking about those who rejected the Gospel, the Atonement doesn't apply. Though Oaks doesn't specifically cite it, the reference to suffering before entering the telestial kingdom appears to be invoking D&C 19:16-17:

And the infinite atonement overcomes all of this. None of this theology is valid at least in eternity.

What is eternity?